The Accreditation Council s Resolution adopted on 16 February 2011

Transcription

1 Printed Matter AR 08/2011 Resolution on the Application of the Central Agency for Evaluation and Accreditation (ZEvA) of 19 May 2010 for Accreditation and Assessment of the Compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) The Accreditation Council s Resolution adopted on 16 February 2011 I. The Foundation for the Accreditation of Study Programmes in Germany ("Foundation") accredits, in accordance with 2 para. 1 no. 1 of the German Law on the Establishment of a Foundation, "Foundation for the Accreditation of Study Programmes in Germany", the Central Agency for Evaluation and Accreditation (ZEvA) Hannover pursuant to the following provisions, thus granting it the authority to accredit study programmes and internal quality assurance systems of Higher Education Institutions by awarding the seal of the foundation. II. The resolution as per item I above, shall come into effect on 16 February It shall cease to be effective if the Agency, does not sign an agreement by 21 March 2011 pursuant to 3 of the German Law on the Establishment of a Foundation, "Foundation for the Accreditation of Study Programmes in Germany" in the version adopted by the Accreditation Council on 10 December III. The accreditation and the right, as per item I above, is granted for a duration of five years; revocation as per item V below is reserved. According to section of the resolution Rules for the Accreditation of Agencies of 8 December 2009, the accreditation expires on 31 March

2 IV. The Accreditation Council notes that ZEvA does not meet some quality requirements. These defects are to be remedied by the agency within six months according to section of the resolution "Rules for the Accreditation of Agencies" of 8 December The accreditation is therefore granted subject to compliance with the following conditions: Condition 1 By 15 August 2011 ZEvA presents the criteria for establishing programme clusters for programme accreditation which are able to ensure that the expert groups will be formed with the necessary academic and disciplinary affinity and of an appropriate size according to the requirements set in section 1.3 of the resolution "Rules of the Accreditation Council for the Accreditation of Study Programmes and for System Accreditation" (criterion 2.2.1). Condition 2 By 15 August 2011 ZEvA presents a binding internal procedure that ensures that the representatives of all relevant interest groups participate in the selection expert for the programme accreditation (criterion 2.2.2). This procedure should preclude that dependencies on individual opinions may arise. Condition 3 By 15 August 2011 ZEvA proves adequately and documents visibly that the Council's resolution "Standards for Structuring the Relationship between System Accreditation and Consultation Services" of 31 October 2008 is taken into account. The Accreditation Council expressly refers to the recommendations contained in the assessment report. V. Should ZEvA not prove compliance with these conditions within the respective term or should such conditions shown not to be fulfilled on expiry of the respective term, the 2

3 Foundation may revoke the accreditation according to section of the resolution "Rules for the Accreditation of Agencies" of 8 December VI. Motivation In general: On the basis of the expert report and under consideration of the Agency's comment the Accreditation Council has come to the conclusion that the Central Agency for Evaluation and Accreditation (ZEvA) substantially meets the criteria set out in chapter 2 of the resolution "Rules for the Accreditation of Agencies" of 8 December In principle, the Agency's work and development during the last period of accreditation has been evaluated positively by the Accreditation Council. In this context, especially the professionalisation of internal organisation schemes and of the quality assurance system of the Agency are to be highlighted. Notwithstanding the recommendations given by the expert group in their report, the Accreditation Council does not impose any conditions concerning the following items: By publishing the internal complaints procedure on their website, the Agency has now fulfilled criterion 2.6. Together with its comment, the Agency also submits a model contract for experts in the system accreditation procedures according to which every person is obliged to participate in a general briefing event to prepare for the procedure, provided that attendance has not already been proven. Therefore the Accreditation Council abstains from issuing a condition concerning the preparation process for the experts in the system accreditation procedures in accordance with criterion Concerning Condition 1: According to criterion 2.2.1, the Agency proves binding internal structures and procedures, which ensure the correct and consistent application of the Rules of the Accreditation Council for the Accreditation of Study Programmes and for System Accreditation" in the current version. Section 1.3 of the resolution establishes specific rules for cluster accreditation procedures according to which study programmes with a high academic and disciplinary affinity may be gathered into a programme cluster. The programme clusters shall be designed to ensure adequate assessment of all (individual) study programmes. 3

4 On pp. 17f of the assessment report, the expert group asserts that the information about the compilation of the clusters by the Agency is not coherent and that, in practice, there are no clearly defined criteria concerning the academic and disciplinary affinity and the compilation of expert groups. Concerning Condition 2: Criterion requires that the agency involves representatives of interest groups (members of the science community, students and practitioners from the profession) relevant for the execution of the task. According to the assessment report (p. 20), currently only subject-specific members of the Accreditation Commission and the members of the executive board of the foundation are participating in the appointment of the experts for the programme accreditation procedures. Students and practitioners from the profession are not yet involved. Concerning Condition 3: Notwithstanding the recommendation for the resolution given by the expert group, the Accreditation Council is issuing this condition since a verbal undertaking made by the Agency cannot be considered appropriate evidence for compliance with the resolution "Standards for Structuring the Relationship between System Accreditation and Consultation Services" of 31 October Furthermore, in the spirit of transparency it should be reasonably comprehensible for the interested public that consulting services provided by "ZEvA Expert" cannot lead to a system accreditation by ZEvA. According to the resolution "Standards for Structuring the Relationship between System Accreditation and Consultation Services" of 31 October 2008 the activities of an accreditation agency in a system accreditation procedure are not compatible with a preceding or current activity that is not related with system accreditation and that concerns supporting consultation or other assistance services which aim at the implementation of the internal quality assurance system that needs to be accredited in the same higher education institution. According to the opinion of the expert group, the planned activities for the branch "ZEvA Expert" could be considered as consultation activities for higher education institutions to which the resolution "Standards for Structuring the Relationship between System Accreditation and Consultation Services" of 21 August 2008 may apply. 4

5 VII. Compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and the membership criteria of the European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA) The Accreditation Council has determined that ZEvA substantially meets the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and the membership criteria of the European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA). The following 13 standards have been met: 2.1; 2.2; 2.3; 2.5; 2.6; 2.7; 2.8; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5; 3.6; 2.8 The following standard has been met substantially: 3.4 The following two standards have been partially met: 2,4; 3.7 5